flynn23 wrote:
] Current graph of the Iowa political Elections Market, one of
] the most accurate predictors of political elections for some
] time. It shows a wide and increasing gap between presidential
] candidates. In this particular case, I think I might start
] looking at moving to Canada.

Why would you want to sully Canada with your presence? Their politicians are elected by an intelligent group of people. In this country, people like you nominate people like John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton and John Kerry at the expense of the Jerry Browns, Ralph Naders, Kucinchs [sic] and Deans (who was actually awful anyway, but still better than Kerry). In Canada, they would get elected. The problem here is not the Republicans or conservatives, but rather the candy-ass liberals that cannot even be proud of their populist leanings. In Canada it is not like that. So, with this in mind, please stay in the US, since your leanings are the type that would only make our friendly neighbor to the North more like this hellhole.

k wrote:
] Current graph of the Iowa political Elections Market, one of
] the most accurate predictors of political elections for some
] time. It shows a wide and increasing gap between presidential
] candidates. In this particular case, I think I might start
] looking at moving to Canada.
]
] [ I think there's a fairly good chance that what this shows is
] people sending their money to democratic causes rather than
] investing in the presidential futures market.
]
] I did meme this last month because i thought it was pretty
] interesting as a concept, but all the indicators are all over
] the place this year. We have polls ranging from a dead heat
] to a 12 point lead. I don't think any predictors are faring
] well at the moment. -k]

The difference is that the IEW is the most *accurate* of predictors in elections, boasting a track record virtually unblemished since the 1988 elections. Polls are flawed and skewed entirely by methodology. NPR just had an article about that on this week, but I cannot find the link. We can only HOPE that the bias inherent in the types of people who play the Iowa market is causing the gap.

flynn23 wrote:
] The difference is that the IEW is the most *accurate* of
] predictors in elections, boasting a track record virtually
] unblemished since the 1988 elections. Polls are flawed and
] skewed entirely by methodology. NPR just had an article about
] that on this week, but I cannot find the link. We can only
] HOPE that the bias inherent in the types of people who play
] the Iowa market is causing the gap.

[ Yeah, NPR is right. For example, Reuters polls signifigantly more republicans than democrats, by design, presumably because (R) turnout has been historically higher. Of course, their poll shows a wide bush lead. WSJ also had a piece which indicated that the high polarization tends to amplify methodological skew and also that turnout is likely to be higher than ever, which makes predictions of Likely vs. Registered voters all the more suspect.

Presumably the Iowa market shouldn't be subject to those same issues, but I have a feeling that the unique characteristics of this race are affecting it as well. The market is more of a confidence poll than a desire poll, and the left in this country isn't known for it's calm reception of bad news. The left flips out and gets demoralized much easier than the right, who get angry and go on the attack instead. There's something ideological in that -- we're already less cohesive, so bad news is like a doberman through a flock of birds. The right is so stubbornly resolute that not very much shakes their confidence, as evidenced by the continued support of an administration whose handling of every critical issue facing the nation has been a complete atrocity.

I think even that is starting to break down though. A number of prominent republican congressmen have lambasted the handling of the war in the past few days, one of them even using the "I" word (incompetent). I really do believe that while the polls and this CBS nonsense give the (R) base fuel, the undecideds in this country are more than likely going to break based on issues, like Iraq, the economy, jobs, health care, economics, etc. The fact that they're undecided means they're already giving more thought to the matter than the polarized base on either side, so we can hope that Big Dog was right and that when people think, dems win.

I also have reasonably high hopes that the debates will skew in our favor.

All that being said, if i'm wrong, Canada won't save you... the US is gonna take down everyone. -k]

k wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] The difference is that the IEW is the most *accurate* of
] ] predictors in elections, boasting a track record virtually
] ] unblemished since the 1988 elections. Polls are flawed and
] ] skewed entirely by methodology. NPR just had an article
] about
] ] that on this week, but I cannot find the link. We can only
] ] HOPE that the bias inherent in the types of people who play
] ] the Iowa market is causing the gap.
]
] [ Yeah, NPR is right. For example, Reuters polls
] signifigantly more republicans than democrats, by design,
] presumably because (R) turnout has been historically higher.
] Of course, their poll shows a wide bush lead. WSJ also had a
] piece which indicated that the high polarization tends to
] amplify methodological skew and also that turnout is likely to
] be higher than ever, which makes predictions of Likely vs.
] Registered voters all the more suspect.
]
] Presumably the Iowa market shouldn't be subject to those same
] issues, but I have a feeling that the unique characteristics
] of this race are affecting it as well. The market is more of
] a confidence poll than a desire poll, and the left in this
] country isn't known for it's calm reception of bad news. The
] left flips out and gets demoralized much easier than the
] right, who get angry and go on the attack instead. There's
] something ideological in that -- we're already less cohesive,
] so bad news is like a doberman through a flock of birds. The
] right is so stubbornly resolute that not very much shakes
] their confidence, as evidenced by the continued support of an
] administration whose handling of every critical issue facing
] the nation has been a complete atrocity.
]
] I think even that is starting to break down though. A number
] of prominent republican congressmen have lambasted the
] handling of the war in the past few days, one of them even
] using the "I" word (incompetent). I really do believe that
] while the polls and this CBS nonsense give the (R) base fuel,
] the undecideds in this country are more than likely going to
] break based on issues, like Iraq, the economy, jobs, health
] care, economics, etc. The fact that they're undecided means
] they're already giving more thought to the matter than the
] polarized base on either side, so we can hope that Big Dog was
] right and that when people think, dems win.
]
] I also have reasonably high hopes that the debates will skew
] in our favor.
]
] All that being said, if i'm wrong, Canada won't save you...
] the US is gonna take down everyone. -k]

Having lived in Iowa for quite some time and knowing where the electoral stock market is run from, I tend to think there isn't a bias in it. It's been dead on accurate for 20 years, a much better predictor of not just winners, but spreads, than any poll.

Unless Iraq seriously blows up in the next few weeks (possible, likely even) and John Kerry gets his head out of his ass and figures out how to be an angry candidate, shrub is going to walk with this one.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
] Having lived in Iowa for quite some time and knowing where the
] electoral stock market is run from, I tend to think there
] isn't a bias in it. It's been dead on accurate for 20 years,
] a much better predictor of not just winners, but spreads, than
] any poll.
]
] Unless Iraq seriously blows up in the next few weeks
] (possible, likely even) and John Kerry gets his head out of
] his ass and figures out how to be an angry candidate, shrub is
] going to walk with this one.

[ Yeah, I don't deny that it's not encouraging, but I'm still feeling a net positive. Kerry does have to get on top of his attack game, and he's been better in the past few days, but no doubt there are weaknesses that he's not exploiting. The bottom line is to stay on top of issues, and not let people forget who fucked things up so bad. He's never had a chance of winning on his own merits... he's just a channel for calling out Bush's weaknesses. I've been dreaming about the debates. I may be overly optimistic (not something i'm accused of often, i assure you), but I think things will break our way, assuming the questions aren't a series of nice lobbed softballs. -k]